JUDGMENT : R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, J. 1. The petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit O.S. No. 38/2019 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Chalakkudy. The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondent is the fourth defendant in the suit O.S. No. 871/2016 on the file of the same court. 2. The main relief sought in the suit O.S. No. 871/2016 is for granting a decree of declaration that document No. 1440/2015 of the S.R.O, Annamanada executed by the first plaintiff in favour of the second defendant in respect of the plaint schedule property is only a document of security for the loan availed by the plaintiffs from the second defendant and that as per document No. 1676/2016 executed in favour of the fourth defendant by the other defendants in respect of the plaint schedule property, the defendants have got no right, title or interest in that property. 3. The respondent, who is the fourth defendant in the suit O.S. No. 871/2016, had filed a petition for eviction against the petitioner as R.C.P. No. 30/2017 in the Rent Control Court, Chalakkudy seeking eviction of the petitioner from the building in the plaint schedule property. The petitioner herein raised a plea in the petition for eviction denying the title of the respondent herein and also denying landlord-tenant relationship between them. The Rent Control Court found that the denial of title of the respondent by the petitioner is genuine and dismissed R.C.P. No. 30/2017. 4. After the dismissal of R.C.P. No. 30/2017, the respondent instituted the suit O.S. No. 38/2019 against the petitioner. The main relief prayed for in that suit is for granting a decree for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property on the strength of title of the respondent. 5. The respondent filed an application as I.A. No. 210/2019 in the suit O.S. No. 38/2019 praying that joint trial of the two suits, O.S. No. 871/2019 and O.S. No. 38/2019, may be conducted. The petitioner filed objection to the aforesaid application raising various contentions. 6. As per Ext.P7 order, the trial court allowed the application filed by the respondent for joint trial of the two suits and also ordered that evidence shall be recorded in the suit O.S. No. 871/2016. 7. The petitioner filed objection to the aforesaid application raising various contentions. 6. As per Ext.P7 order, the trial court allowed the application filed by the respondent for joint trial of the two suits and also ordered that evidence shall be recorded in the suit O.S. No. 871/2016. 7. The defendant in the suit O.S. No. 38/2019 has filed this original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality and propriety of Ext.P7 order. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the respondent. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial court did not properly exercise its discretion in allowing joint trial of the two suits. Learned counsel would submit that the Rent Control Court had found that the title of the respondent over the building in the plaint schedule property can only be adjudicated after the conclusion of the trial of the suit O.S. No. 871/2016 and therefore, the suit O.S. No. 38/2019 filed by the respondent is premature and not maintainable. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that, on the dismissal of the petition for eviction on the ground that denial of his title over the building in the property by the petitioner is genuine, the respondent had got a legal right to institute the suit O.S. No. 38/2019. Learned counsel has further contended that, the basic evidence to be adduced by the parties in the two suits is the same and conducting joint trial of the two suits would be not only be convenient for the parties but also necessary in the interests of justice. 11. Before examining the question whether the court below has exercised its discretion properly in passing Ext.P7 order, I shall examine the principles of law with regard to consolidation of suits and conducting of joint trial. 12. There is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for consolidation and joint trial of suits. This procedure is based on the rule of convenience and necessity. It is based on the principle that procedure is the handmaid of justice. 13. 12. There is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for consolidation and joint trial of suits. This procedure is based on the rule of convenience and necessity. It is based on the principle that procedure is the handmaid of justice. 13. In Chitivalasa Jute Mills vs. Jaypee Rewa Cement, AIR 2004 SC 1687 , the Apex Court observed as follows: “The Code of Civil Procedure does not specifically speak of consolidation of suits but the same can be done under the inherent powers of the Court flowing from Section 151 of the CPC. Unless specifically prohibited, the Civil Court has inherent power to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. Consolidation of suits is ordered for meeting the ends of justice as it saves the parties from multiplicity of proceedings, delay and expenses. Complete or even substantial and sufficient similarity of the issues arising for decision in two suits enables the two suits being consolidated for trial and decision. The parties are relieved of the need of adducing the same or similar documentary and oral evidence twice over in the two suits at two different trials.” 14. Consolidation is a process by which two or more causes or matters are, by order of the Court, combined or united and treated as one cause or matter. The main purpose of consolidation is to save costs, time and effort and to make the conduct of several actions more convenient by treating them as one action. The jurisdiction to order consolidation arises where there are two or more matters or causes pending in the court and it appears to the court that a common question of law or fact arises in both or all the suits or that the rights to relief claimed in the suits are in respect of or arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions (Prem Lala Nahata vs. Chandi Prasad Sikaria, AIR 2007 SC 1247 ). 15. Consolidation of suits is ordered for meeting the ends of justice as it saves the parties from multiplicity of proceedings, delay and expenses and the parties are relieved of the need of adducing the same or similar documentary and oral evidence twice over in the two suits at two different trials. 15. Consolidation of suits is ordered for meeting the ends of justice as it saves the parties from multiplicity of proceedings, delay and expenses and the parties are relieved of the need of adducing the same or similar documentary and oral evidence twice over in the two suits at two different trials. Independent identity of the suits is not lost even after their consolidation (Mahalaxmi Cooperative Housing Society Limited vs. Ashabhai Atmaram Patel, AIR 2013 SC 961 ). 16. A joint trial can be ordered by the court if it appears to it that some common question of law or fact arises in two or more proceedings or that the right to relief claimed in them is in respect of or arises out of the same transaction or series of transactions or that for some other reason it is desirable to make an order for joint trial. An order for joint trial is considered to be useful in that, it will save the expenses of two attendance by counsel and witnesses and the trial judge will be enabled to try the two actions at the same time and take common evidence in respect of both the claims. A joint trial is ordered when a Court finds that the ordering of such a trial would avoid overlapping of evidence being taken in two or more causes and it will be more convenient to try them together in the interests of the parties and in the interests of an effective trial of the causes (State Bank of India vs. Ranjan Chemicals Limited, (2007) 1 SCC 97 ). 17. Consolidation of two suits need not necessarily be by agreement of parties. If a court, after hearing parties, feels that in the interests of justice it is necessary that two or more proceedings should be tried together, it is open to it to order so to avoid repetition of the same evidence in the different cases or to avoid the possibility of conflicting decisions in those cases or for such other justifying reasons (Janardhanan Pillai vs. Kochunarayani Amma, 1976 KLT 279 ). 18. Consent of the parties is not necessary for consolidation of suits. The power inherent in the Court on well accepted principles to order a joint trial does not depend upon the volition of the parties (State Bank of India vs. Ranjan Chemicals Limited, (2007) 1 SCC 97 ). 19. 18. Consent of the parties is not necessary for consolidation of suits. The power inherent in the Court on well accepted principles to order a joint trial does not depend upon the volition of the parties (State Bank of India vs. Ranjan Chemicals Limited, (2007) 1 SCC 97 ). 19. At the same time, consolidation of suits is not a short cut method in framing of issues and determination thereon or in the manner of rendering judgment. The issues in each suit must be framed and determined separately. The decision in each suit, with reasons thereof, also must be rendered separately. This can be done in one common judgment (Lakshmi vs. Abhinay, 2020 (3) KHC 174 ). 20. In Ext.P7 order, the lower court has stated as follows: “The 2nd issue raised in O.S. No. 871/2016 is “Whether the document bearing No. 1440/2015 is valid?” Whereas the 1st issue raised in the present suit is “Has the plaintiff acquired title over the plaint schedule property?” The 1st issue in the present suit is depending on the outcome of the 2nd issue in the other suit. If the suits are tried separately, the plaintiff herein may lose the opportunity to tender evidence regarding the 1st issue raised in the present suit, since if the 2nd issue in O.S. No. 871/2016 is decided in favour of the plaintiff therein, then the present plaintiff who is the subsequent purchaser would be bound by the outcome of that issue. In other words, the issue No. 1 in the present suit is corollary to the issue No. 2 framed in the other suit.” 21. The above reasons stated by the lower court to order consolidation of the two suits would show that it has exercised its discretion in a proper manner. 22. The property, which is the subject matter of dispute in the two suits, is one and the same. In the suit O.S. No. 38/2019 filed by the respondent, the main question to be decided is whether he has got valid title over the property. Answer to this question would in turn depend upon the answer to the question whether the persons who assigned the property in his favour had valid right and title over it. In the suit O.S. No. 38/2019 filed by the respondent, the main question to be decided is whether he has got valid title over the property. Answer to this question would in turn depend upon the answer to the question whether the persons who assigned the property in his favour had valid right and title over it. The crux of the plea raised by the petitioner in the suit O.S. No. 871/2016 is that the other defendants who assigned the property in favour of the respondent (the fourth defendant in that suit) had not obtained any right, title or interest over it by virtue of the document executed by the petitioner in favour of the second defendant in the suit. Therefore, common questions of law and fact arise for determination in the two suits. 23. Where the defendant in a suit institutes another suit against the plaintiff and the right to sue arises from the very same act or transaction from which the plaintiff earlier filed the suit, common questions of law or fact may arise and if the suits are allowed to proceed separately, conflicting decisions may arise. Consolidation of the two suits for joint trial saves such a situation (Navabharat Vignan Trust vs. Nasihudeen, 2013 (1) KHC 1 : 2013 (1) KLT 310 ). The situation is more or less the same in this case. Sufficient unity or similarity of the matters in issue in the suits or the fact that the determination of the suits rests mainly on a common question, making it convenient to have them tried together, is a relevant consideration in exercising the power of consolidation of suits. 24. In the instant case, the claim of the parties in the two suits are inextricably interlinked. The claims in the two suits depend upon the validity of the document executed by the petitioner in favour of the second defendant in the suit O.S. No. 871/2016. It is not necessary that all the questions or issues that arise shall be common in both suits before joint trial can be ordered. It would be sufficient if some of the issues are common and some evidence to be let in is also common. In the instant case, the basic evidence to be let in the two suits would be more or less the same. Joint trial of the two suits would avoid overlapping of evidence. It would be sufficient if some of the issues are common and some evidence to be let in is also common. In the instant case, the basic evidence to be let in the two suits would be more or less the same. Joint trial of the two suits would avoid overlapping of evidence. Duplication of evidence can be avoided if the two suits are tried together. 25. The contention of the petitioner, that the suit O.S. No. 38/2019 filed by the respondent is premature and not maintainable, is not a relevant consideration in deciding whether consolidation of the two suits is convenient and necessary. In this context, the following observations made by the Apex Court in State Bank of India (supra) are relevant: “It appears to us that the High Court and the Trial Court asked themselves the wrong question. The question was not whether the civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit or to continue with the suit. The question was whether in the nature of the respective claims arising out of the loan transaction, it was just and proper to order a joint trial of the two causes.” 26. I find only one serious flaw in Ext.P7 order passed by the lower court. That order was passed by the court without hearing the second plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 in the suit O.S. No. 871/2016. Though consent of parties is not necessary for consolidation of suits, it is always necessary to hear all the parties concerned before ordering consolidation of suits. However, in the instant case, the second plaintiff in the suit O.S. No. 871/2016 is the son of the petitioner who is the first plaintiff in that suit. The petitioner is also the power of attorney holder of his son. Defendants 1 to 3 in the above suit are persons who ride along with the respondent who is the fourth defendant in that suit. If they were aggrieved by the order for consolidation of the suits, they would have approached this Court by this time. They have not done so. In the above circumstances, the fact that the lower court did not hear the above parties before passing Ext.P7 order, is not a sufficient ground to warrant interference in the order. 27. In the above circumstances, the challenge against Ext.P7 order fails. 28. Consequently, the original petition is dismissed.